Arbitration Demands Based on Ratings

[BuenoWaino]

Based on my readings on the forum, Arbitration estimates (like those on the Salaries page) are based on ratings rather than stats as they are in real life. And I sort of understand the reasoning behind it, but on the other hand, I kind of don't.

According to Markus in this very old thread: http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...-awards-2.html it was done so that people couldn't go in and edit a player demanding $1mil in Arb into a superstar and keep him on the super cheap.

Which I get...except for the fact that doesn't really stop anyone exploiting the game. If someone wants to edit their players into a superstar, they aren't going to let astronomical arbitration prices stop them. They can just go in and edit the guy's greed and team loyalty up or down as needed, or heck just edit in the extension of their own choosing. I get Markus wanting to close up exploits, but having Arbitration based on ratings doesn't actually close up this exploit at all, so long as you're playing in Commissioner mode in the first place.

And it's easy for me to see a lot of downside in this setup. For example, doesn't this create an exploit in itself? Can't you go and look at the arb estimates on the salary page and see just how good your young player really is (as opposed to just getting really lucky or having a career year) and know exactly which ones you want to lock up and which you don't? More importantly, what's the point of locking up players early during their years of control for the league minimum? Teams do it in real life, exchanging cost certainty and discount on future earnings for guaranteed money for the player. Which makes a lot of sense. But why would you do this in OOTP? The cost is already certain (barring a significant ratings change) and you can't receive any discount (since they player knows exactly how good he will be over the course of the contract), so all you're doing is agreeing to pay the guy even if he gets injured.

Is arbitration not based at all on stats? Or is it the same as the AI evaluation settings, where if you have a 40/30/20/10 setting, then it'll be based 40% on ratings and the rest on stats? It just seems really, really odd to me that irl arbitration prices are based first and foremost on playing time more than anything, yet in OOTP my pitcher can go down with TJ and miss an entire season and demand a $3-$4M raise for the following season. And it's doubly frustrating when the reasoning behind this setup is to close an exploit that 1) is only available to those using the editor and 2) isn't closed for those who use the editor anyway as they can just edit in any contract they want.

[ThePretender]

The financial/salary system is easy enough to abuse right now without editing players. In fact, I'd argue arbitration and contract extensions are too low to begin with. I've got a guy who has good ratings and ranked top 2 in Cy Young votes last year and this year, and is set to make $5.5M in arbitration. That's way too low if you ask me.

I have to create rules when I play or else all my players will be signed to $20M/10 year deals (total, not AAV) if I sign them pre-arb. And if I sign them during arb, I can get superstar calibre guys to sign for 55/5 (total, not AAV) buying out 2 FA years, when their FA salaries would be 20-30M each.

So while I agree in real life it should be based on stats, here it should be based by a minimum of ratings, and if two players with identical ratings have different performance, the guy with the ratings + stats should get an even higher arb value. This is to ensure that players are not getting ridiculously low salaries like the ones I've mentioned before.

The salary/financial/extensions is poorly done and easy enough to abuse without having access to the editor. It got to the point in an online league where I could spend $50M a year on two separate players, and still have a payroll under 155M and not go over my budget. So this is definitely something that needs to be improved. But I disagree with your comment, because if it's done the way you suggest it would be even easier to abuse the financial/extension/contract system.

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by BuenoWaino

Based on my readings on the forum, Arbitration estimates (like those on the Salaries page) are based on ratings rather than stats as they are in real life. And I sort of understand the reasoning behind it, but on the other hand, I kind of don't.

According to Markus in this very old thread: http://www.ootpdevelopments.com/boar...-awards-2.html it was done so that people couldn't go in and edit a player demanding $1mil in Arb into a superstar and keep him on the super cheap.

Which I get...except for the fact that doesn't really stop anyone exploiting the game. If someone wants to edit their players into a superstar, they aren't going to let astronomical arbitration prices stop them. They can just go in and edit the guy's greed and team loyalty up or down as needed, or heck just edit in the extension of their own choosing. I get Markus wanting to close up exploits, but having Arbitration based on ratings doesn't actually close up this exploit at all, so long as you're playing in Commissioner mode in the first place.

And it's easy for me to see a lot of downside in this setup. For example, doesn't this create an exploit in itself? Can't you go and look at the arb estimates on the salary page and see just how good your young player really is (as opposed to just getting really lucky or having a career year) and know exactly which ones you want to lock up and which you don't? More importantly, what's the point of locking up players early during their years of control for the league minimum? Teams do it in real life, exchanging cost certainty and discount on future earnings for guaranteed money for the player. Which makes a lot of sense. But why would you do this in OOTP? The cost is already certain (barring a significant ratings change) and you can't receive any discount (since they player knows exactly how good he will be over the course of the contract), so all you're doing is agreeing to pay the guy even if he gets injured.

Is arbitration not based at all on stats? Or is it the same as the AI evaluation settings, where if you have a 40/30/20/10 setting, then it'll be based 40% on ratings and the rest on stats? It just seems really, really odd to me that irl arbitration prices are based first and foremost on playing time more than anything, yet in OOTP my pitcher can go down with TJ and miss an entire season and demand a $3-$4M raise for the following season. And it's doubly frustrating when the reasoning behind this setup is to close an exploit that 1) is only available to those using the editor and 2) isn't closed for those who use the editor anyway as they can just edit in any contract they want.

Commish Mode is put there so the user can edit/customize the game to their liking.

It's not designed to play in Commish Mode all the time, because if you do, then you can exploit anything in the game, not just financials.

You answered your own question -

Play in Commish Mode, exploit what you like

Don't play in Commish Mode, prevent yourself from exploiting

It's your game, play it your way.

[BuenoWaino]

I get what Commish mode is there for. And I'm not trying to judge anyone who plays in it all the time. As you said, it's all about playing how you want to play.

My point was that Markus claimed the arbitration demands are based on ratings rather than stats to ensure people couldn't edit their guys into superstars while they still demand $1Mil contracts because their previous stats are low. Which is all fine and dandy, but that's not an issue with people who DON'T abuse the editor, nor does it actually solve the loophole anyway since those who do use it can also edit contracts to whatever they want.

[JMDurron]

Making the arbitration estimates/awards/demands tied into the AI evaluation settings would seem to be an obvious solution. If that's how teams behave in valuing players as trade targets/FAs, it should be how teams behave with regards to arbitration/contract extensions as well.

[BuenoWaino]

Originally Posted by ThePretender

The financial/salary system is easy enough to abuse right now without editing players. In fact, I'd argue arbitration and contract extensions are too low to begin with. I've got a guy who has good ratings and ranked top 2 in Cy Young votes last year and this year, and is set to make $5.5M in arbitration. That's way too low if you ask me.

I have to create rules when I play or else all my players will be signed to $20M/10 year deals (total, not AAV) if I sign them pre-arb. And if I sign them during arb, I can get superstar calibre guys to sign for 55/5 (total, not AAV) buying out 2 FA years, when their FA salaries would be 20-30M each.

So while I agree in real life it should be based on stats, here it should be based by a minimum of ratings, and if two players with identical ratings have different performance, the guy with the ratings + stats should get an even higher arb value. This is to ensure that players are not getting ridiculously low salaries like the ones I've mentioned before.

The salary/financial/extensions is poorly done and easy enough to abuse without having access to the editor. It got to the point in an online league where I could spend $50M a year on two separate players, and still have a payroll under 155M and not go over my budget. So this is definitely something that needs to be improved. But I disagree with your comment, because if it's done the way you suggest it would be even easier to abuse the financial/extension/contract system.

Actually, this is a good argument for what I'm saying. If arbitration and demands were based more on stats, and other real life factors like playing time (IP, PA/AB's, etc) and awards (like Cy Young awards, etc.), the players who are performing well would have more realistic demands, which would be higher than what is set by the current setup. A two-time Cy Young winner would be demanding record-setting contracts for arbitration ala Linceum instead of a $3-5mil increase. A guy who hits 125RBI's with 40 HRs would ask for $10mil ala Ryan Howard. Maybe those guys actually suck, and just got lucky, or played way above their true talent level, or got 90% of their career production in a single season. But it's up to the player to evaluate that. If you play stats only for example, that makes things very difficult on whether they're worth the money. Even if you play with ratings on, depending on scouting accuracy, the quality of your scout, and your scouting budget, there's quite a bit of wiggle room in determining future performance and maybe you end up letting that pitcher go and replace him with two league average pitchers for the same price who are worse for a year or two, but in the long run are better value and don't tie up your budget.

On the other hand, it would push some demands down. Guys who sit out a year or perform terribly should not be demanding $2-5Mil arb raises just because their ratings say they SHOULD be better than they actually are. And it would give the player the ability to really game the system with extensions for players with very little service time by locking them into cheap as dirt extensions like Longoria (first contract), Perez, Altuve, Matt Moore, etc. Not every player should want to go in for such deals, but that should be determined by the personality system (greed, team loyalty, intelligence, etc.), not by knowing their own ratings better than the player can (without peeking into the editor).

In my opinion, it could really change the way you evaluate/acquire/use players. Just as in real life, traditional stats (like wins, IP, saves, strikeouts for pitchers, batting average, HR, RBIs for hitters) could be immensely valued in Arb and lead to much higher arb demands and awards, while players who provide their value in other ways (using your best reliever as a stopper in high leverage situations, thus not accruing saves or very defense-oriented players who generally aren't rewarded in arb) would ask for and be awarded less.

I'm not asking for a system that's easier to exploit, but a more realistic one that creates a wider range of arbitration demands. I've never been able to lock up players in 16 to the type of contract you're describing. Kudos to you. Granted, I've only played 10-12ish seasons as I play out every game which takes a long time, so I'm not saying it can't be done. But based on my understanding of how arbitration works, I don't see how. Unless you're locking up mediocre/sub average players, in which case I'd ask 1) how is it unreasonable and 2) why you're locking up those players in the first place.

To give you an example, in my latest MLB quickstart, I'm playing as Cleveland, and I'm in September 2015. I brought Lindor up at the start of June, so he only has 100ish days of service time, with 2 more years at the league minimum and 4 more at arbitration (assuming he's going to be Super 2). His arb number is currently $3.6mil, because he has good ratings, even though he's only batting .235 with a .285 obp (though he does have 7 hr). I asked him about an extension, and the lowest I could get him to sign for was $7mil a year because you really have to talk these young guys up if you want them to sign anything more than a 1-year contract. Yes this guy is supposed to be good (else, why would I extend him) and could become a superstar, but he could also get hurt or regress or never develop. To just buy out his years of team control, I'd have to pay him $40mil+, whereas if I just stay year-to-year, I'd probably get him for $25-$30mil over that same span unless his ratings take a huge jump forward due to the development/talent change engine. In which case, I have to ask, why bother with extensions before the final arb year, as you (the team) is taking all the risk when there's literally a 50/50 chance the player improves or declines.

[ThePretender]

Why my suggestion is different than yours is because I'm aware of how awful OOTP is at evaluating contracts. Regardless of how well a player does I can offer a 10 year, 1-2M deal within their first year and there's an 80% chance they'll accept. Some guys I might add 1M more, others a year or so less, but it's a bargain.

As for why I disagree with stats based, is because then if a 90-90-90 SP has a poor year or two and makes 3M in arb, he'll take a small raise, and you can lock him up for under 6-7M a year for 8 years. The game should value arb higher, I agree, but should have a minimum value for higher ratings and whatever that is + X for guys who have stats + ratings.

Whether the guy I sign is a utility player or a superstar, it doesn't matter, cause I sign guys who are mostly filled out. If a guy flames out it's a minor inconvenience, compared to if they play to their ratings or perform at a high level. An MLB regular for 1-2M over 8-9M is a ridiculous bargain, and the value far outweighs the risks.

But that's just me. I play with specific rules as I said to avoid that, because it's too easy to game the contract system.

[RchW]

I think things have changed since the old thread. My impression/perception is that arb is, if anything, a little high in-game but OTOH the possibility of an arb years contract seems easier. It's not wildly off base for the fictional leagues I play.

Regardless of how well a player does I can offer a 10 year, 1-2M deal within their first year and there's an 80% chance they'll accept. Some guys I might add 1M more, others a year or so less, but it's a bargain.

I never see this and I do watch for it.

[ThePretender]

Pretty much every online league I'm in I've been able to do that, which is why I put rules in place to prevent it from happening. Works best pre-arb. I'm no longer in this league, for example, but Player Report for #4 Tristan Metten is a good example (Signed a 9-year contract extension worth a total of $11,160,000 with the Philadelphia Phillies organization.). Player Report for #13 Max Sapp is another example in a league I'm currently in, Signed a 8-year contract extension worth a total of $9,600,000 with the Oklahoma City RedHawks organization. So not 10 years, in this case, but in this league service time leads to FA a year earlier, so the 8/9 year deals cover the same amount of FA years.

I try not to do these deals because I feel bad exploiting what is a very poor contract system, but it's easy enough to do when you know when to do it. It's not about waiting for a poor year either.

I find arb values to be way too low. For elite players if I get an arb value of less than 10M (and it happens far too often) then it's really not being done properly. Like I said before a guy coming off back to back second place Cy Young finishes should not be sitting @ 5M, it should be way higher.

[BuenoWaino]

Originally Posted by RchW

I think things have changed since the old thread. My impression/perception is that arb is, if anything, a little high in-game but OTOH the possibility of an arb years contract seems easier. It's not wildly off base for the fictional leagues I play.



I never see this and I do watch for it.

I've never seen contracts like that either, nor have I been able to pull it off (and I routinely check what it would cost to extend all my young guys throughout the year). II would say Sapp is much more of a steal, but it also looks like that may have been done in an earlier version of OOTP based on the player history (though it could easily be fictional starting before 2015). Of course I can get some very team-friendly deals, but nothing in the $10-20mil (total)/10year range. In any case, that's neither here nor there.

I wouldn't be surprised if arbitration awards have changed a lot since the thread I linked earlier, I just haven't been able to find any concrete information on it, and would love to know what is currently being factored in. Hopefully, when 17 gets announced Markus or others will be around answering questions and be able to let us in on any tweaks to the calculation.

I don't really find arbitration to be too high, or too low. Well, closers are definitely too low compared to real life (hence my belief that stats like Saves are still not a factor). I don't see any closers getting Chapman/Kimbrel money in arb. I guess I just find it very "automatic" and "flat". The replacement level guys get a $500K-$1M raise, league average around $1-2mil, better than average gets $2-4mil and the top players get around $5mil. Again, it doesn't matter if the guy has an MVP season, or spends 5 1/2 months on the disabled list or posts a negative WAR. The raise, even if it fits the stats, feels very arbitrary, with not enough variation as you move in either direction from the ratings projection. I don't see $7-10mil raises for the Lincecum's, Arrieta's, Keuchel's, Crush Davis's & Donaldson's, but I also don't see the modest increases (or more severely actually pay CUTS) for guys who played poorly or were hurt or were relegated to a bench role.

Which is why I'd like to see arb awards tied to stats, or at least to whatever settings the player is using for AI evaluation. I think such a system would lead to bigger contracts just as often as it resulted in cheaper ones, and would overall better reflect real-life. And if stats/AI eval is a factor, then I guess I'm arguing for them to be even more so in the future. Again, I'm not arguing for easier negotiations at all. That's a separate issue, and one that should be (and I believe is) tied to the player personality system, which I actually find to be pretty fair all in all.

[ThePretender]

Originally Posted by BuenoWaino

I've never seen contracts like that either, nor have I been able to pull it off (and I routinely check what it would cost to extend all my young guys throughout the year). II would say Sapp is much more of a steal, but it also looks like that may have been done in an earlier version of OOTP based on the player history (though it could easily be fictional starting before 2015). Of course I can get some very team-friendly deals, but nothing in the $10-20mil (total)/10year range. In any case, that's neither here nor there.

Sapp's contract was done during OOTP 16 - it's a fictional league which started in the 90's. The patch version may have changed from when I did Sapp's contract, but I recently offered another player a 6 year deal; worth 4.6M to cover some arb and FA years. Only reason I didn't do 9-10 was it was for a utility player. Nothing changed from patch to patch with regards to the version number, as I can still hand out these contracts in the most recent patch.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by BuenoWaino

I've never seen contracts like that either, nor have I been able to pull it off (and I routinely check what it would cost to extend all my young guys throughout the year). II would say Sapp is much more of a steal, but it also looks like that may have been done in an earlier version of OOTP based on the player history (though it could easily be fictional starting before 2015). Of course I can get some very team-friendly deals, but nothing in the $10-20mil (total)/10year range. In any case, that's neither here nor there.

I wouldn't be surprised if arbitration awards have changed a lot since the thread I linked earlier, I just haven't been able to find any concrete information on it, and would love to know what is currently being factored in. Hopefully, when 17 gets announced Markus or others will be around answering questions and be able to let us in on any tweaks to the calculation.

I don't really find arbitration to be too high, or too low. Well, closers are definitely too low compared to real life (hence my belief that stats like Saves are still not a factor). I don't see any closers getting Chapman/Kimbrel money in arb. I guess I just find it very "automatic" and "flat". The replacement level guys get a $500K-$1M raise, league average around $1-2mil, better than average gets $2-4mil and the top players get around $5mil. Again, it doesn't matter if the guy has an MVP season, or spends 5 1/2 months on the disabled list or posts a negative WAR. The raise, even if it fits the stats, feels very arbitrary, with not enough variation as you move in either direction from the ratings projection. I don't see $7-10mil raises for the Lincecum's, Arrieta's, Keuchel's, Crush Davis's & Donaldson's, but I also don't see the modest increases (or more severely actually pay CUTS) for guys who played poorly or were hurt or were relegated to a bench role.

Which is why I'd like to see arb awards tied to stats, or at least to whatever settings the player is using for AI evaluation. I think such a system would lead to bigger contracts just as often as it resulted in cheaper ones, and would overall better reflect real-life. And if stats/AI eval is a factor, then I guess I'm arguing for them to be even more so in the future. Again, I'm not arguing for easier negotiations at all. That's a separate issue, and one that should be (and I believe is) tied to the player personality system, which I actually find to be pretty fair all in all.

Then why did you post in a way that demanded a response to the contrary?

[NoOne]

it's within reason in my leagues, too.

i notice that the complaint has to do with a non-modern league financial environment... so that could be causing the differences too. a modern league environment without money supply problems works well, i can attest to that without a doubt and for centuries of time (in perpetuity actually).

if they are top-end talent, they are usually happy with just a bit less than their demand (i'd suggest figuring a % to keep it proportional). this make sense because i am slightly over-paying them the first year or two that would overlap FA. if you add what you over pay in those two years to the years outside of arbitration and re-calculate $$/year it usually makes sense.

i defintiely can't get a 20m/yr guy for 10m/yr just because i buy 2 years of arbitration. i've seen it as low as 16m/yr for a truely great player, but that was with a very loyal and non-greedy player. in a 28 team league, i have ~20-som contracts that break 20m/year - to give an idea of hte financial environment. a babe ruth type might get to 30m/year, most are 20-25m/yr for the studs.

too much of this is potentially caused by different settings, so it's almost useless to compare my experience to yours.

e.g.

it's a 20+m/year FA type quality...

arbitration will be 8mill and 12mill... and he is demanding 20m/year

he takes 18mill/yr for 7 years. (assume flat salary to make it easier)

so you are overpaying 16million the first 2 years... add that to 90mill over the last five years and you get the real cost/year after arbitration. 106 / 5 =21.2million/year

even though he signed for 18m/year, he really signed for 21.2m/year after arbitration ends. that's what the game seems to be paying attention to when i flesh out how cheap i can go on extending an arbitration eligible player.

[BuenoWaino]

Originally Posted by RchW

Then why did you post in a way that demanded a response to the contrary?

Because my thoughts were organized poorly and I conflated contract extensions with arbitration estimates/awards, when I really meant to use to the former to simply illustrate my "issue" with the latter?

IDK. I didn't indent to start yet another thread complaining about the difficulty of getting cheap extensions for players, yet that clearly seemed to be the bigger take-away from my original post based on people's replies. So in the post you quoted, I was simply trying to bring the focus back on arbitration numbers. Which I think could be more realistic if stats were a factor/bigger factor.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by BuenoWaino

Because my thoughts were organized poorly and I conflated contract extensions with arbitration estimates/awards, when I really meant to use to the former to simply illustrate my "issue" with the latter?

IDK. I didn't indent to start yet another thread complaining about the difficulty of getting cheap extensions for players, yet that clearly seemed to be the bigger take-away from my original post based on people's replies. So in the post you quoted, I was simply trying to bring the focus back on arbitration numbers. Which I think could be more realistic if stats were a factor/bigger factor.

No problem.

My understanding is that arbitration awards are based on AI evaluation which includes stats and ratings and is user set.